4.6 Article

ClC-3 expression enhances etoposide resistance by increasing acidification of the late endocytic compartment

期刊

MOLECULAR CANCER THERAPEUTICS
卷 6, 期 3, 页码 979-986

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0475

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Resistance to anticancer drugs and consequent failure of chemotherapy is a complex problem severely limiting therapeutic options in metastatic cancer. Many studies have shown a role for drug efflux pumps of the ATP-binding cassette transporters family in the development of drug resistance. CIC-3, a member of the CLC family of chloride channels and transporters, is expressed in intracellular compartments of neuronal cells and involved in vesicular acidification. It has previously been suggested that acidification of intracellular organelles can promote drug resistance by increasing drug sequestration. Therefore, we hypothesized a role for CIC-3 in drug resistance. Here, we show that CIC-3 is expressed in neuroendocrine tumor cell lines, such as BON, LCC-18, and QGP-1, and localized in intracellular vesicles colabeled with the late endosomal/lysosomal marker LAMP-1. CIC-3 overexpression increased the acidity of intracellular vesicles, as assessed by acridine orange staining, and enhanced resistance to the chemotherapeutic drug etoposide by almost doubling the IC50 in either BON or HEK293 cell lines. Prevention of organellar acidification, by inhibition of the vacuolar H+-ATPase, reduced etoposide resistance. No expression of common multidrug resistance transporters, such as P-glycoprotein or multidrug-related protein-1, was detected in either the BON parental cell line or the derivative clone overexpressing CIC-3. The probable mechanism of enhanced etoposide resistance can be attributed to the increase of vesicular acidification as consequence of CIC-3 overexpression. This study therefore provides first evidence for a role of intracellular CLC proteins in the modulation of cancer drug resistance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据